Ted McConnell says Social Media is not Media

Ted McConnell, the GM for interactive marketing and innovation at Procter & Gamble, recently ruffled feathers in the social media world by stating that social media is not actually media.
McConnell spoke:

"I really don't want to buy any more banner ads on Facebook..."

"I have a reaction to Facebook as a consumer advocate and an advertiser: What in heaven's name made you think you could monetize the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?"

"Who said this is media? Media is something you can buy and sell. Media contains inventory. Media contains blank spaces. Consumers weren't trying to generate media. They were trying to talk to somebody. So it just seems a bit arrogant. ... We hijack their own conversations, their own thoughts and feelings, and try to monetize it."

The statement cause such a dust storm, that it even made it to social media list serve at Razorfish. An interesting debate ensued, to which my first reaction was this:

" First, I think the central point of the article is advertising versus consumer rights (specifically privacy)… ie whether it is morally sound to monetize social media space.

The fact is, if people really took offense to the advertising that is occurring in the “space that they are breaking up with their girlfriend,” then they simply wouldn’t use the service. I believe this is one of the reasons for MySpaces slowed growth turned attrition rate, and for Facebook’s rise: FB has figured out a way to advertise with minimal invasion. Let the market decide whether or not they are willing to bear advertising in their social networks!

Furthermore, customers SHOULD accept advertising in their space. McConnel’s statement portrays a sense of entitlement that I don’t think is warranted. Why should people get to use Facebook for free? It took a lot of hard work to get Facebook to where it is, and it needs a revenue model to allow it to continue to exist.

Also, McConnell’s objection that Facebook is not media is a quirky statement. Sure people were just trying to have a conversation, but people are generally willing to pay (either a phone bill, or the price of seeing advertising) in order to have conversations through a service. The platform on which that service occurs is a media platform. Some of that media space is for socializing, and some of it is for advertising, and the two are mutually reciprocating. People accept there is a price to use a service to have a conversation. If McConnell has a problem with that, he probably shouldn’t buy adwords with google, since they show up in your gmail inbox.

The only other alternative is to start charging a service fee for Facebook… and I think we all know how that would end up. Which leads me to a comparison to the business model of the alleged ad supported Google phone. Apparently “56 percent of mobile users said they would view ads on their phones if they were given a 25 to 50 percent discount on their monthly bill.” You can read the original article here.

Conclusion: I am not sure why McConnell feels the need to stand up for Facebook users, since Facebook users seem pretty happy, and quite capable of standing up for themselves… perhaps he needs to be reminded of Beacon before he jumps in to save those who carrying on swimmingly."

Several other interesting comments were made that, when taken together, fully contextualize the issue. A colleague of mine wrote:

" When I read this article, I thought, wonder how much of McConnell’s thoughts come down to something as simple as a generation gap? Then earlier this evening, I Ws reading Emily Nussbaum’s excellent 2007 article “Say Everything” and it confirmed it for me. Compare McConnell against some relevant excerpts:

So it just seems a bit arrogant. ... We hijack their own conversations, their own thoughts and feelings, and try to monetize it. – McConnell

Vs. Nussbaum:

“More young people are putting more personal information out in public than any older person ever would—and yet they seem mysteriously healthy and normal, save for an entirely different definition of privacy. From their perspective, it’s the extreme caution of the earlier generation that’s the narcissistic thing. Or, as Kitty put it to me, “Why not? What’s the worst that’s going to happen? Twenty years down the road, someone’s gonna find your picture? Just make sure it’s a great picture.

And after all, there is another way to look at this shift. Younger people, one could point out, are the only ones for whom it seems to have sunk in that the idea of a truly private life is already an illusion. Every street in New York has a surveillance camera. Each time you swipe your debit card at Duane Reade or use your MetroCard, that transaction is tracked. Your employer owns your e-mails. The NSA owns your phone calls. Your life is being lived in public whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

So it may be time to consider the possibility that young people who behave as if privacy doesn’t exist are actually the sane people, not the insane ones.”

I think McConnell just doesn’t get it."